Thank you for commenting on my ink article. In your comment you stated: "Many poskim disagree... Many rishonim have clearly stated the use of our ingredients." Would you please be kind enough to teach us (so I can include it in the article) which Poskim and what exactly and where did they say that the עפצים וקנקנתום type of ink is preferable over good quality דיו עשן that does not fail? We are not interested in biased פילפולים , or in those who said that דיו עשן is not being used because it fails easily or because it was not known how to make good quality דיו עשן. Nor are we interested in those who said to use עפצים וקנקנתום וגומא ואין לשנות when they discussed specifically the עפצים וקנקנתום type of ink. We are interested to find out where and who (if any) said explicitly, based on sources, that the עפצים וקנקנתום type of ink is preferable over good quality דיו עשן , even when there is דיו עשן of good quality that does not ...
משנת אברהם סימן יא, יג
ReplyDeletehttp://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8248&st=&pgnum=62&hilite=
זה מהתקון תפלין והגהות ברוך שאמר [דפוס חדש - משי זהב] עמוד קסא
ReplyDeleteשם מפורש על בחזק שאם משך הז' כמו ד' הפוכה הרי זה פסול
Thanks. I see that the Mishnas Avraham himself brings right away the Poskim who are not Choishesh to be Machmir by strectched out Raish. It seems strange to be Machmir, for if you flip the Raish, it still does not become a Chaf Peshuta. You would still need to rotate it vertically... But the Zayin does become a Dalet if you flip it. This might be a difference between the two.
DeleteIt all boils down to the same point.
Deletewhether the letter completely lost it's forme.
as you just explained very well the reasoning of the ר not being a issue.
so too, yes, if the (meant to be) ז straight out looks to a normal person like a backwards ד, then you have a problem.
similar to the case of the ברוך שאמר, that the head of ז was extended on one side to fill the gap of a extra letter!
however if you need to stretch your imagination to come to that conclusion, then it can't be too problematic.
Halachah lemaaseh is not like the Mishnas Avraham. As I'd mentioned in another post, Rav Elyashiv was not gores this opinion and that seems to be the daas of the poskim. The Reish is lechatchila as is.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the Dalet, this is worthy of a shailas chacham. I'd expect that a shailas tinok is called for. R' Shea, if you ask a shailah please share with us who you asked and the psak.
When the rosh is normal size and the regel is very close to either edge, the Mikdash Me'at says to ask a tinok. Here the rosh is wide and there's the aforementioned concern of a Dalet hafuch from the Baruch She'amar.
Since you wanted me to update you on status - I asked Rav Avraham Tzvi Vosner today, and he said a Tinok should be asked. Even though I was certain a Tinok would read it correctly, since a Tinok is unlikely to see a Dalet Hafucha which is a "Lomdus" from a Sofer's perspective, he nevertheless felt a Tinok should be consulted. A Tinok indeed read it properly as a Zayin.
ReplyDeleteThank you. As expected. I don't think it's so pashut that a tinok would call it a Zayin. While it's most unlikely a tinok is going to look at it and say, "Hey, that's a backwards Dalet", there's a concern that he won't recognize it as a Zayin. Perhaps the point of referring to it as a "Dalet hafucha" is that it's a shinui tzura/there's a shailah of shinui tzura, that it no longer looks like a Zayin?
ReplyDelete